By John F. Copper

What’s with the Recent Tension in US-China Relations?

In
the past few months, US-China relations have sunk to a state somewhere between
frosty and hostile. This marks a major change since President Trump visited
China in November 2017.

There
are several reasons for this, one of which is not often noted.

The
simple explanation is that President Trump got China to promise to fix the
trade deficit and help the US apply sanctions on North Korea to force Kim Jung
Un to negotiate ending his nuclear weapons and missile programs. But Trump soon
became dismayed with the results of both.

Instead
of the US trade deficit decreasing it increased. This was partly a product of
the US economy improving and thus stimulating America’s demand for more Chinese
products. It may also have been the result of Chinese leaders assuming that
this was a long-term goal and acting on it quickly and energetically contradicted
dealing with economic problems at home and unemployment in China.

Chinese
leaders no doubt also coupled fixing the trade deficit with solving the North
Korea problem and reckoned helping the US deal with North Korea meant they did
not have to treat the trade deficit as an urgent problem. Anyway, they wanted
to proceed cautiously on North Korea as they did not want to cause the regime
there to implode; it was evident to China that Kim faced problems at home in
meeting US demands.

President
Trump was embarrassed and angry that the trade deficit grew. It also became glaringly
evident that China’s “Made in China 2025” strategy launched in 2015 was on a collision
course with President Trump’s “Make America Great Again” policy. The former
would make China the foremost country in the world in advanced manufacturing
and much more. Trump wanted to fix America’s economy and restore America’s
global leadership in high tech and a lot more. Thus, the conflict grew.

Trump’s
chosen strategy was to place tariffs on Chinese goods entering the US knowing
China depended more on exports than the United States. He also understood the
deficit was the cause of factories closing in the US, the loss of jobs, and a
huge and dangerous debt, and that using shock treatment was the way to
successful negotiations.

Thus,
in March the Trump administration announced tariffs on USD 60 billion of
Chinese imports. At the time Trump cited the results of a Section 301 (of the
Trade Act of 1974) investigation into China’s unfair trade practices: disregard
for rules on intellectual property, discrimination against foreign (e.g. American)
firms, and industrial policies that favored Chinese companies.

The
Section 301 report also named a Chinese government initiative as emblematic of
China’s bad behavior: Made in China 2025.

The
tariffs had a significant impact on China, both economically and politically.

Growth
of China’s GDP slowed. Its stock market sputtered. There was a slowdown in construction.
Productivity declined. There were increasing worries about domestic debt (now
said to be 250 percent of GDP). The yuan fell and this threatened China’s
influence in international finance.

Further,
the government’s options in controlling the economy seemed to be in question. A
USD 600 billion stimulus package in 2017 had created problems in the private
sector and did not now seem a good idea.

Political
problems followed the negative economic news.

President
Trump criticized China openly for the trade deficit and spoke of more, perhaps
endless, tariffs.

Chinese
leaders felt compelled to answer tit-for-tat. China placed tariffs on American
products exported to China. Fares on some items such as soybeans were aimed at
Trump’s favorite voting constituencies. Meanwhile China’s media accused
President Trump of launching a trade war.

China’s
actions had an impact on the US economy and of its politics. In addition, it
caused US friends and allies to warn President Trump he was causing a danger to
world trade and what he was doing was wrong.

There
was another variable affecting US China relations neither the media nor pundits
linked to the current hostility and did not often discuss in this context. That
is that the United States is in an election campaign mode.

During
recent election campaigns China has been an issue. American politicians have
found it convenient to portray China as a bogeyman. China’s rise is a challenge
to the United States. Politicians also love scapegoats and during election
campaigns China has been a favorite.

During
the heat of the 1980 presidential election campaign Ronald Reagan castigated
President Jimmy Carter for his weak and wrongheaded diplomatic recognition of
“Communist China” — which Reagan said Carter did for political reasons notably
his low opinion poll numbers. He lauded the Taiwan Relations Act that
“corrected Carter’s mistakes.”

Reagan
asserted he “would not betray friends and allies.” He even said on several occasions
during the campaign he would support reestablishing diplomatic ties with
Taiwan.

After
the election the Reagan administration cemented a better working relationship
with China than had ever been the case before. US military officers engaged
with their counterparts for the first time. US defense and intelligence
agencies worked closely with China on such issues as the Afghanistan war.
Reagan approved the sale of dual-use high tech items to China. US Navy ships
made their first visits to Chinese ports.

After
the election, one can expect President Trump as other presidents before him
will restore good relations with China. He still has a lot of goodwill in
China.

Reagan
never spoke again about restoring formal ties with Taiwan.

In
1992 candidate Bill Clinton blasted President George H. W. Bush for “coddling dictators”
in China citing Tiananmen Square and mentioning specifically Bush’s sending a
“secret emissary to toast those who crushed democracy in China.”

As
president Clinton de-linked most-favored-nation trade status for China from the
human rights issues. He said it was “time to take a new path.” Clinton later
moved to establish a US-China strategic partnership and invited Chinese President
Jiang Zemin to Washington for an official state visit — the first in twelve
years. He then travelled to China for an unprecedented ten-day summit.

During
the 2000 campaign George W. Bush excoriated President Clinton for his big “departure”
on China policy from the campaign to governing. Specifically, he stated: “China
is a competitor, not a strategic partner.”

In
office Bush didn’t talk of competition and instead spoke of cooperation with China.

Barack
Obama during the 2008 presidential election campaign criticized the USD 1 trillion
debt owed to China and called China a “currency manipulator.” He rebuked China
for violations of human rights and intellectual property rules.

Once
president, Obama talked about “continuity” in US’ China policy and used terms
such as “positive cooperative” and “comprehensive” to describe US-China
relations.

The
election in November 2018, while only a mid-term and should not be so important
or so much about foreign policy, for a number of reasons it is otherwise.

First,
the liberal Western media is on a tear against China. Its anti-China obsession
is almost as strong as its anti-Trump syndrome. China is condemned because it
is destroying the liberal world order and is substituting its own for it.
China’s “order,” the media charge, is not democratic, not egalitarian, not
focused on international law, etc.,

The
“Beijing consensus” meanwhile challenged democracy on a worldwide scale. China’s
much better economic performance than the Western democracies — even though
democracy was supposed to facilitate economic growth — worked miracles in
reducing poverty and maintaining social order and progress

China’s
rise is thus a trend that needs to be reversed, says the liberal media.

Second,
the Democratic Party needs some fungible election issues. That Russia gave
Trump the election win in 2016 has grown shopworn and lacks credibility.
Democratic Party strategists are in search of a topic to counter Trump’s record
and his success in “making America great again.”

The
US media and academe making China a “whipping boy” and portraying it as a
menace to America is easy because Americans’ knowledge of China is superficial
and is mainly provided by the liberal anti-China news outlets. Also, US’ China
scholars are mostly on board and love to write about pollution, corruption,
real estate bubbles, etc. in China and ignore China’s being the foremost nation
in the world in green energy and its helping alleviate global poverty and
economic growth as no country ever has.

It
is also telling that the US sends to China less than 1 percent of the students
China sends to the United States. The number is about the same as US students
studying in Ireland. Should Americans not try to understand China better?

Alas
condemning China is something for Democrats to grasp onto. The media and
academe have laid the groundwork. Opinion polls show the number of Americans
that believe China is a threat has tripled in the last year.

Third,
Democrats sorely need to rationalize their hardly veiled racism against Asians,
especially the Chinese, via their support for affirmative action especially as
it manifests in discrimination against Asians in admission to America’s best
colleges and universities.

The
Chinese in America have recently underscored this issue by suing Harvard
University for its racially biased admissions policies.

Recent
opinion polls taken of the Chinese in the US show that they feel they are
discriminated against in Boston more than any other American city — because of
the numerous great universities there that deny equal or fair entrance to the Chinese.
The Chinese have even been heard saying “liberals hate Chinese” because they
are conservative in their views and dislike big government, high taxes, etc.

The
upshot is President Trump needs to fight with China over trade lest the
Democrats capture and fully exploit the anti-China issue during the election
campaign.

In
fact, he may even diffuse it since the left cannot agree with Trump on anything.

After
the election, one can expect President Trump as other presidents before him
will restore good relations with China. He still has a lot of goodwill in
China. Also, Chinese leaders realize that the US cannot sustain the current
trade imbalance or the debt it contributes to.

Finally,
the nexus of good US-China relations is a sine
qua non to maintain a stable financial world system, control nuclear
proliferation, deal with the global environment, etc. Both President Trump and the
Chinese leaders know this.

About The Author

John F. Copper is the Stanley J. Buckman Professor of International Studies (emeritus) at Rhodes College in Memphis, Tennessee. He is the author of more than thirty books on China, Taiwan and US Asia policy.